AIBU to think dismissal during probation was unfair given autism adjustments?

[SereneRoseRobin]

I’m looking for honest views because I’m not sure whether I’m being unreasonable or whether this was genuinely unfair.

I was recently dismissed from a graduate/analyst role after my probation was extended. I am autistic, and my employer knew this. I had raised the need for clear written instructions, defined objectives, examples of similar work, timelines, and timely/direct feedback. Some support was put in place, including coaching, but I don’t feel the actual adjustments were properly embedded or reviewed before the decision was made.

The difficult part is that the concerns raised about me seemed mainly to focus on communication style, professional behaviour, asking for clarification, Teams messages, and quality assurance under pressure — rather than on whether I could actually do the analytical work. Some recent written feedback said my analytical skills were good, that my work did not contain relevant errors, that I was taking ownership, and that I sought support appropriately. Another person said I had picked up on a complex project well.

The project I was criticised on was not straightforward. I was a first-year graduate with no prior experience in that sector, and I was assigned open-ended/data-heavy modelling work with a lot of ambiguity and short deadlines. Some outputs were expected within hours or by the next day, so there was not much time for structured review. I also didn’t always get timely feedback while I could still act on it. Some feedback came months after the work had ended.
My probation extension was meant to allow support and coaching to take effect, but I was dismissed before the extension period had fully ended. I had submitted evidence of improvement the day before the decision, but I don’t feel it was properly discussed or considered.
The coaching report apparently said the benefit of coaching should be assessed after a longer period, because performance can dip while new strategies embed.

I’m appealing because I think they didn’t properly separate disability-related communication issues from actual capability, didn’t give recent improvement enough weight, and didn’t consider alternatives such as letting the extension run, providing clearer QA/communication frameworks, assigning more standard analyst work, or redeploying me to a more suitable team.

I’m not saying I was perfect. I know there were areas to improve. But I feel like I was assessed against unclear expectations, on complex work, without the timely feedback and structure that had already been identified as necessary for me.

AIBU to think this was unfair and potentially linked to disability discrimination/failure to make reasonable adjustments? Or is this just how probation works, and I should accept it and move on?

Ahahahahaaaaa! Way to prove a point…

Speak to Accas quickly because you are on a deadline to request to be paid while you wait for the outcome of the tribunal which can take years
But it definitely sounds as though you have a discrimination case against them for not making reasonable adjustments for your disability that you were outlined with them before you started

The ERA is making it much harder to get rid of people who aren't a good fit, for whatever reason. At my place we're pre-empting by terminating those with ??s above them, and those who don't fit the role or require too much support, while we can.

I have an experience from tech consultancy, not the big4.

Dealing with unclear tasks and uncertain situations is tne main part of our work now.
Software and AI is able to perform well structured tasks. Turning a mess of a client who doesn't know what exactly they know into a structured problem statement, thinking about the parts not covered there, and deciding when the clear instructions shouldn't be followed and a better solution is possible- those are the skills that matter.

Loads of people leave the big 4. One of our team left after 2 years none of his colleagues stayed either - the hours were brutal, they wanted a better work life balance - that story gets told over and over again. Also working for a consultancy can be quite unsettling, you never know what you will be doing and who you will be doing it for and a lot of people really struggle with this - it's not a bad thing - no one expects grads to know themselves - you try something out and it doesn't suit you, that's ok.

But I think you need to understand what led to your dismissal - try not to focus on what your employer didn't do (that's less useful) - try to use the experience to understand why your didn't thrive - what you didn't enjoy and what you did enjoy and what you were good at.

Not making it in consulting doesn't mean you won't thrive elsewhere - you just need to find a role that fits your profile better.

Happy to be corrected but I didn’t think reasonable adjustments meant “I’ll tell you what I want and you HAVE to do this regardless of feasibility or benefit to the business” ?
definitely sounds as though you have a discrimination case against them for not making reasonable adjustments for your disability that you were outlined with them before you started

Probation is to allow both parties test the waters to see if the role is a good fit. They gave you 6 months, extended it to 9. I think they have done what they feel that can do to help you succeed and decided the role was not for you and/or they could not provide the support you needed in their environment. Move on.

Accas can advise if you’re unsure, give them a tinkle

They don’t owe you a job.

Because they didn’t make you permanent?

They won't get you your job back though.

Sometimes people just don't fit in a workplace. It isn't necessarily their fault but if for example they thrive on clear processes and good systems, and the workplace is relying on employees' experience and lurches from one crisis to the next, it's not a good fit. So in these cases the employee needs to go and find another workplace that suits them better.

That’s not how apologies work.
“hey colleague, I’m sorry I recorded the call without asking you for permission - I wanted to make a transcript for my own benefit”

Thats no longer the aim at this point.

Completely agree with this, particularly in analysis. If I can provide structured written instructions and previous examples, then AI can do it. The reason to pay a human is to deal with uncertainty, ambiguity, and the unasked questions.

I had raised the need for clear written instructions, defined objectives, examples of similar work, timelines, and timely/direct feedback.

Oh gosh, this isn't "reasonable adjustment", it's nth degree hand holding which companies just don't have time for. Consultancy has too many variables for the kind of help you require. I think if you need that kind of adjustment, you might be better finding a more structured job that you can learn and then easily fly solo. There's one out there for you, but this isn't the one.

You took a role that is inherently complex, open ended, time critical and invariably without coaching, space, handholding and careful walking through every little step.

Your 'examples' sound very much like you were expecting to be handed a perfect template, perfect data, a step by step how to guide and to be able to pretty much hit refresh for your work to be done. Plus lots of praise when you did that. No data analyst or manager is going to have time to do that - if they did, they wouldn't need another analyst.

Data entry might be a better place to start, as you could then get a grip upon the workings of a business, how their systems work and integrate (or don't), how the daily functions are reflected in data and then, along with some experience in effective and diplomatic communication and a better employment record, you might be in a position after some decent experience to think again.

ETA: one of the key abilities is to be able to work out from the 2am garbled rantings of management put through Chat GPT (and still not making much sense) what they think they want, what they think they mean and then translating it into what they actually want and mean, working out how you can get that information and transform it into something they have a chance of vaguely understanding so they can come across as though they actually know what they're talking about in meetings - even if they really, really don't. You're paid to be the bulletproof, smart person in the room, not the pet sympathy case.

The OP needs to focus their energies on getting a job, not getting into a dispute.

The recruitment team failed. The OP was transparent.

What’s the aim then? To sue because she didn’t pass probation for a job she can’t do?

She can do both

I remember reading something a while ago that MI5 employ a lot of neurodivergent staff because of strengths in analytics and pattern recognition. I can't find the actual article but happened across this instead

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp954ep948lo

This is the third thread the OP has started about this.

There's a considerable gap between 'I'm autistic' and 'Do everything for me because I'm helpless'.

I think that's really useful and valuable feedback for the OP given your own diagnosis @Overthebow